More 16 F2.8 comparisons: corrected vs. uncorrected vs. JPG

I ordered my 16 F2.8 from Adorama a few days ago (Saturday), expecting to have to wait a while before they got it in, and, as expected I got an email saying it was backordered. A few people on this forum suggested that it might be easier to get at a local camera store, so I checked with my local store (Mike's Camera in Boulder) online and ordered it to pickup in the store. The website said it was 'coming soon', but I got an email 30 minutes later to say it was ready for pickup. So I picked it up today and cancelled my Adorama order. I've been playing with it, because we have some nice autumn weather right now. I shot RAW, and processed some of the shots in camera using the shot settings, which presumably gives me the same results as using DPP (which I hate for its clunkiness). I then imported the images into Lightroom and exported some downsized JPEGs (2000 pixels on the long side) both of the in-camera converted JPEGs and the RAWs with no lens corrections applied (but using the rest of my default processing settings for the R. Then I also applied the lens corrections for the RF 24-240 STM, as suggested by some people here, and added 130 distortion correction, as also suggested by someone. The results are interesting. As we know, the uncorrected RAWs are much wider than 16mm. Even the corrected versions (using the 24-240 profile and 130 distortion correction) are a bit wider than the in-camera JPEG conversion, and with only the 24-240 profile applied, they are significantly wider. Here are some examples, starting with the first shot I took with the lens, right outside the camera store:

This is the in-camera conversion using shot settings, giving the 16mm field of view

This is the LR conversion with no lens correction applied. See how much wider it is.

This is the LR conversion with 24-240 profile applied and 130 distortion correction. Still slightly wider than the in-camera JPEG conversion

Here's another set of 3, showing the in-camera conversion, LR conversion with no corrections, and LR conversion with lens corrections:

This is the in-camera JPEG conversion using shot settings. I framed this shot to exclude the porta-potty on the right (not seen here, obviously)

This is the uncorrected LR conversion. As you can see, there's a lot more on the side here.

This is the LR conversion with 24-240 profile and 130 distortion correction. As you can see, it's a little wider than the in-camera JPEG conversion

And here are a few conversions with the stated lens corrections applied:

I'm mostly interested in using this lens for landscape shots in good (or at least fair) light, so all these shots are stopped down to F8. I did take one closer to wide open (F4):

I'm very pleased with this lens. It's small, light, cheap, and pretty sharp (at least stopped down to the apertures I'll be mostly using it at). I have had several UWA zooms over the last 15 years, and used the wide end for more than 90% of my shots. Most of the other 10% were at the long end of the zoom. So, between this 16 F2.8 and my 35 F1.8, I have probably 99% of the shots I would have taken with an UWA zoom covered, and I'm much more likely to have this lens (and the 35) with me. The lens also seems to handle flare quite well. All in all, it's a great addition to the RF lineup for those of us without unlimited funds to pay for lenses and assistants to carry them for us.

Thanks for posting those, it would be great too see full resolution images if you can post.

Kristian

kristian1 wrote:

Thanks for posting those, it would be great too see full resolution images if you can post.

Kristian

Which ones would you like to see in full resolution?

Alastair Norcross wrote:

kristian1 wrote:

Thanks for posting those, it would be great too see full resolution images if you can post.

Kristian

Which ones would you like to see in full resolution?

Maybe this two, to see mostly edge performance.

Thank you.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65578998?image=7

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65578998?image=9

If possible with default sharpening.

All the best

Krtistian

kristian1 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

kristian1 wrote:

Thanks for posting those, it would be great too see full resolution images if you can post.

Kristian

Which ones would you like to see in full resolution?

Maybe this two, to see mostly edge performance.

Thank you.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65578998?image=7

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65578998?image=9

If possible with default sharpening.

All the best

Krtistian

Here you go. I'm not sure what default sharpening is. My default settings for the R at ISO 100 are: Amount-60, Radius-2, Detail-25, Masking-70. I have an ISO aware import preset for each camera I own, which applies different settings depending on the ISO level. The sharpening settings don't vary that much with ISO, though.

Thank you for posting those , it looks decent specially for the lens that small and cheap.

All the best

Kristian

This lens is a mixed bag for me

Good price, FL and spec.......... but corrections rob you of a good bit of resolution. Just guessing it looks like a 1.1-1.2x crop which is like 20-40% of your MPs. For a lens that I imagine will be used for landscapes a lot that's kind of a bummer

But I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size. Kind of seems like a missed opportunity like the RF 50 1.8

Tristimulus wrote:

Just wondering.

Why would anyone skip digital correction when using a lens that is designed to be digitally corrected?

More wider and better corner quality, for landscapes it's maybe possible to skip lens correction

Tristimulus wrote:

Just wondering.

Why would anyone skip digital correction when using a lens that is designed to be digitally corrected?

I don't know. The point of my post was to show how wide the lens is before and after corrections. It's clearly quite a bit wider than 16mm before corrections. The thing about corrections for this lens is that you actually have some choice about how much and which corrections you use, if you shoot RAW. I suppose you might really want a bit of extra width on occasion, and not mind the distortion. You might even welcome the distortion for effect. People apply all kinds of effects to their images. I don't think it's a bad thing to have the option to apply corrections or not (and which ones to apply). It's not as if anyone is forcing you to do it one way or another.

Tristimulus wrote:

Just wondering.

Why would anyone skip digital correction when using a lens that is designed to be digitally corrected?

To understand what compromises the digital correction introduces. If I'm a landscape shooter, I'd def like to know that correcting the geometry on this lens will throw away 20-40% of my resolution for example. Will that matter to everybody? Maybe, maybe not, but having that info will enable more informed decisions.

sportyaccordy wrote:

This lens is a mixed bag for me

Good price, FL and spec.......... but corrections rob you of a good bit of resolution. Just guessing it looks like a 1.1-1.2x crop which is like 20-40% of your MPs.

As far as I can tell, applying the corrections I used is equivalent to about a 1.15 crop, which loses about 25% of your MP.

For a lens that I imagine will be used for landscapes a lot that's kind of a bummer

That would be more of a problem in the days of 8MP sensors. But even then it wouldn't have been terrible. I still have my 8MP 20D, which was an amazing camera in its day, and gave me lots of great landscape shots. This lens would have used 6 of those 8. My first DSLR was the 6MP 300D. I have several 30" X 20" poster prints of landscapes from the 300D on my walls. They look great. From a 6MP sensor. Now that we have megapixels oozing from every pore, it's even less of a problem. My R uses about 22.5 of its 30 megapixels to produce the corrected images from this lens. I can remember when everyone was waxing lyrical about the incredibly high resolution of the 1DsII, which had 17 MP. If you use an R5, you'll still be using about 33.5MP with this lens. I know that people (on these forums at least) keep insisting that they 'need' more and more megapixels. But they really don't. They're just trying to justify their lust for newer and newer gear. I prefer to not attempt to rationalize that lust. I just admit that I really like new toys (not that I can usually afford them). Need doesn't come into it. It's all about want.

But I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size. Kind of seems like a missed opportunity like the RF 50 1.8

NormSchultze wrote:

I'd really like some architectural views with multi-story buildings.

There's not a lot of that around Boulder (the city has a height ordinance), but I'll see what I can do.

Seems to outperform my old EF 20/2.8 (which kind of wasn't hard, it was awful in the corners but lovely on a crop camera).

sportyaccordy wrote:

Tristimulus wrote:

Just wondering.

Why would anyone skip digital correction when using a lens that is designed to be digitally corrected?

To understand what compromises the digital correction introduces. If I'm a landscape shooter, I'd def like to know that correcting the geometry on this lens will throw away 20-40% of my resolution for example. Will that matter to everybody? Maybe, maybe not, but having that info will enable more informed decisions.

The OP corrected that to 25%, which would reduce a 20MP camera (e.g. the R6) to 15MP.

I think this sideproduct is the major concern about this lens, and I imagine that as time goes by, more and more lenses will rely on on digital correction of this sort.

David

Alastair Norcross wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

This lens is a mixed bag for me

Good price, FL and spec.......... but corrections rob you of a good bit of resolution. Just guessing it looks like a 1.1-1.2x crop which is like 20-40% of your MPs.

As far as I can tell, applying the corrections I used is equivalent to about a 1.15 crop, which loses about 25% of your MP.

For a lens that I imagine will be used for landscapes a lot that's kind of a bummer

That would be more of a problem in the days of 8MP sensors. But even then it wouldn't have been terrible. I still have my 8MP 20D, which was an amazing camera in its day, and gave me lots of great landscape shots. This lens would have used 6 of those 8. My first DSLR was the 6MP 300D. I have several 30" X 20" poster prints of landscapes from the 300D on my walls. They look great. From a 6MP sensor. Now that we have megapixels oozing from every pore, it's even less of a problem. My R uses about 22.5 of its 30 megapixels to produce the corrected images from this lens. I can remember when everyone was waxing lyrical about the incredibly high resolution of the 1DsII, which had 17 MP. If you use an R5, you'll still be using about 33.5MP with this lens. I know that people (on these forums at least) keep insisting that they 'need' more and more megapixels. But they really don't. They're just trying to justify their lust for newer and newer gear. I prefer to not attempt to rationalize that lust. I just admit that I really like new toys (not that I can usually afford them). Need doesn't come into it. It's all about want.

But I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size. Kind of seems like a missed opportunity like the RF 50 1.8

Im not following your logic. If more MPs dont matter youd still be shooting a 6MP camera.

Plus I'm not even suggesting that people run out and buy super high MP bodies. But there are photography disciplines that leverage resolution. A lens that throws out 25% of the MPs it captures will be less desirable to a lens that doesnt, regardless of how many MPs are available. Having that info allows people to choose the lens that makes the most of their sensors if that is a priority.

sportyaccordy wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

This lens is a mixed bag for me

Good price, FL and spec.......... but corrections rob you of a good bit of resolution. Just guessing it looks like a 1.1-1.2x crop which is like 20-40% of your MPs.

As far as I can tell, applying the corrections I used is equivalent to about a 1.15 crop, which loses about 25% of your MP.

For a lens that I imagine will be used for landscapes a lot that's kind of a bummer

That would be more of a problem in the days of 8MP sensors. But even then it wouldn't have been terrible. I still have my 8MP 20D, which was an amazing camera in its day, and gave me lots of great landscape shots. This lens would have used 6 of those 8. My first DSLR was the 6MP 300D. I have several 30" X 20" poster prints of landscapes from the 300D on my walls. They look great. From a 6MP sensor. Now that we have megapixels oozing from every pore, it's even less of a problem. My R uses about 22.5 of its 30 megapixels to produce the corrected images from this lens. I can remember when everyone was waxing lyrical about the incredibly high resolution of the 1DsII, which had 17 MP. If you use an R5, you'll still be using about 33.5MP with this lens. I know that people (on these forums at least) keep insisting that they 'need' more and more megapixels. But they really don't. They're just trying to justify their lust for newer and newer gear. I prefer to not attempt to rationalize that lust. I just admit that I really like new toys (not that I can usually afford them). Need doesn't come into it. It's all about want.

But I guess that's reasonable to expect for the price/size. Kind of seems like a missed opportunity like the RF 50 1.8

Im not following your logic. If more MPs dont matter youd still be shooting a 6MP camera.

Plus I'm not even suggesting that people run out and buy super high MP bodies. But there are photography disciplines that leverage resolution. A lens that throws out 25% of the MPs it captures will be less desirable to a lens that doesnt, regardless of how many MPs are available.

other things being equal, which they never are. My point, which I didn’t think was that difficult to follow, was that using 75% of the pixels on a modern camera still gives great results. More pixels provide diminishing returns. For many people, a small, light, cheap lens that uses 75% of the massive number of pixels we have available is a far better proposition than a big, heavy, expensive lens that uses all of them.

Having that info allows people to choose the lens that makes the most of their sensors if that is a priority.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/